2024-03-25 Meeting notes: Agreements + Inventory interaction + WOLFcon

Date

25 Mar 2024 

Meeting will be an hour earlier for Europeans due to time changes.

Housekeeping

• Convener and notes: Martina Schildt 
• Next meeting: 08 Apr 2024 
  • next week is cancelled

Discussion items

1. WOLFcon session ideas
2. AGR and INV interactions
   1. workflows and requirements demo | Sara Colglazier

Minutes

WOLFcon session ideas

• joint session with POs on how to best forward our tickets
  • +1
  • building stronger connection
  • maybe every 3 months have joint meeting
• Inventory-Agreement line interactions, different sources of metadata, different practices
  • maybe as a joint session with MM
• informational session on outcomes for larger community
• topics that we come back to redularly
• defintely we should have something

AGR and INV interactions

Sara in Slack

Thinking over what all was said today (20 March 2024) during App-Interaction, I would like to put forward a modest yet serious proposal as someone who is a very interested user-party in connecting records in Agreements and Inventory:
-- How about we start by flipping how we are thinking about this. That is, let's start in Inventory rather than Agreements.
-- Let's consider a new field in Inventory Holdings under the Electronic access accordion that would allow us to add--manually, via Bulk Edit, or via Data Import Field Mapping Profile--an Agreement Line UUID ... which in turn would
-- Activate on the Agreement Line side that a link appear in the AGL--somewhat akin to the one that does now with the POL; just something basic and generic like the View in inventory link. It will be easier to handle and manage the many:1 situations this way [Inventory>>Agreement Lines]--which will be dominant.
Further things:
-- Re: Inventory Holdings: the Agreement Line UUID would render/display as the Agreement Line Name--similar to how the e-Resource Name displays for the AGL view now rather than the xx-xxxx-xxxxxx eHoldings Code; also it would be the AGL Name and not the "Parent" Agreement Name, unlike how it works with the POL-AGL now in the POL.
-- In Inventory, it will be important that the field is searchable/able to be retrieved on (via the Holdings Segment) with the Query Search and possibly a Filter.
-- The field should be available to the new Lists App and, as already indicated, for Bulk Edit (as UUID) and added as a field able to be used in a Data Import Field Mapping Profile (the mapping would use the UUID).
Then those already existing Holdings records that would need to have the AGL UUID added can have it added via Bulk Edit, and all new records going forward can have it be added manually to individual records as part of the institution's record set up workflow, OR when records are added in batch as file loads using Data Import (however configured in the mapping). [Similarly Data Export should be able to bring out the field.]
-- On the Agreement Lines Segment side a Filter would be added for: Inventory Holdings record Linkage present: Yes/No [the POL View in inventory links to the Instance and not the Holdings and so would be different; obviously the two links would be named distinct and labelled obvious].
-- Finally, no dependency would be created. If Holdings records in Inventory are removed, they do not care whether or not they are linked to an AGL. And in the AGL, the link does care whether more Holdings in Inventory get added or get deleted etc. I would expect when I click on the link in an AGL that I would be taken to Inventory and all the records that have the AGL UUID at that moment in their Holdings record in the appropriate field will then be retrieved and displayed. Similarly, when I am in a Holdings record and I click on the hyperlinked name, it would bring me to the AGL. .... I am not sure what I would want to happen if I were to delete an AGL for which Holdings records had the AGL's UUIDs. I suppose the field would just become empty.
In any case, I have been pondering ... and offer the above as food for thought to further the cross-app discussion.

         >>> Sara updating above what she put in slack: 

              – If the AGLine is deleted, then in the Holdings record field, the UUID would stop rendering as its name but display as itself AND (naturally) its hyperlinking functionality would be gone. This way, though, it could still be searched on in Inventory (and updated or deleted manually/via BulkEdit/via Data Import as needed/desired) or it would remain as an indication that the record was added to inventory in connection with a past AG/AGL.

              – Populating the new Inventory Holdings field with an AGLine UUID would NOT automatically activate anything on the AGLine side. Instead in Agreements in the AGLine there would be a box labelled something like: {AGL} Has Holdings in Inventory, if the box is checked to True/Yes, then it, upon saving the AGL, would activate a link to appear next to the box, like, View records in Inventory, which when clicked would basically take one to Inventory, executing a search for all Holdings records that have the AGL's UUID in the specified field.

Minutes 25 Mar 2024 

• Sara: user should be able to add or remove like in any KB - no interdependancies
• user should not b blocked from an AGL just because there are things in Inventory added (such as UUID of the AGL)
• Sara: I add titles to Inventory to display them in Discovery
• requirement: be able to add link to Inventory record - system should display AGL name
• would like to use bulk edit to add UUID to all records that are already loaded
• in AGL information user should be able to edit
  • dropdown with yes/no > if yes: link will appear
  • clicking on link a new tab will open
    • system displays all records in Inventory that are linked in
• when deleting an AGL > the rendering would stop > instead of the name the UUID would display on the Inventory record
  • by that users know immediately that AGL is no longer connected
• Felix in chat: Sara, are you using EDS for discovery?
  If yes, do you need to provide the MARC records in this case or is it sufficient to activate you packages in eHoldings? Will this proof holdings in EDS? I have no clue how this works...
• Sara: we use EDS - but no activation in discovery
  • activation happens in EBSCOAdmin
  • there they are boosting packages
  • EBSCO and ProQuest do not share package metadata; whereas Springer does make their packages available
• Felix: could EBSCO do some changes to this way?
• Sara: there is movement - but don't want messing with relevance ranking
• Laura in chat: I do like the idea of this kind of link happening at the holdings level, though I wonder if some institutions would want more flexibility? 
  • I am trying to think if there is a broader category that Agreement/Agreement line would fall into, if we're thinking of proposing a new accordion, are there other types of information we also might want there in future?
• Kristin: Flexibility: maybe people would want to attach to the Instance if they didn't use the holdings?
• Owen: “Electronic access” elements exist at every level of Inventory. Maybe this is the same?
• Maura in chat: Do agreements apply only to electronic resources? I’m afraid I know very little about acquisitions processes.
  • Kristin: You could make agreements apply to other types of resources, but primarily folks are probably using them for e-resources 
  • Owen agrees
  • Owen: I think we could probably change that “primarily” to “almost exclusively”.
    I’m not aware of any other use tbh but it’s possible
  • Kristin: I think we have some licenses recorded in the system for all sorts of things, but maybe not agreements.
  • Owen agrees
  • Kristin: Looks like we didn't attach agreements to those.
• Laura in chat: It's not necessarily relevant to this conversation, but it strikes me that many of us are storing and updating lots of copies of bibliographic metadata just in order to get them indexed for discovery. (We don't need to talk about this here!)

  I should have clarified, many of us in the U.S.

• Kristin Martin agrees in chat: Yep

• Owen: this is an important point; we have different systems not talking to each other
• Charlotte in chat: Yes. I was also thinking … if only we could search across Inventory and Agreement using Elastic Search
• Felix in chat: We might not keep up with a) less staff and b) more and more e-resources in the future. Even with us with a central union catalog and distributed work on cataloging and using a central index this is lots of work.
• Owen in chat: Elastic search could be an option - we are looking at this as on horizon of Agreements work
• Felix in chat: Why do you need the AGRLine<->Holdings connection at all? And I'm wondering if this connection could be established automatically using ID checks. For Springer ebooks this could work pretty well with ISBNs from the MARC and KBART's. 
  • Owen: would be keen to investigate; it has the promise that users can do something in Inventory or Agreements and have those things bridged
  • but: some of the things are not in the KB > so not possible to link to
  • when it goes wrong > analysis to find error will be difficult; matching is always difficult > logs needed
  • Owen: this is happening in eUsage> correction is kept
  • idea: ask people who use eUsage to tell how this works
• Owen: what Sara proposes: linking Inventory item to agreement line - maybe better: link should be some kind of representative of the thing described in Agreements
  • AGR and INV both know about this thing
  • modelling needs more thought
• possible WOLFcon topic: Inventory-Agreement line interactions, different sources of metadata, different practices

Next steps

•  continue in next meeting in 2 weeks

Chat

17:01:41 Von Ros, Amanda L an Alle:
greetings
17:01:56 Von Kristy Lueshen (she/her) an Alle:
Hey folks, waiting for a delayed fight and am not totally prepared for a meeting. So I don't have a mic.
17:04:50 Von Laura Daniels an Alle:
I hope we can have some sort of A-I meeting or programming at WolfCon
17:04:51 Von Kristy Lueshen (she/her) an Alle:
I am planning to go to WOLFCon
17:07:07 Von Charlotte Whitt an Alle:
And the PO meetings could also need some new topics. We are often only talking about planning, jira processes, jira administration …
17:08:31 Von Laura Daniels an Alle:
great idea, Charlotte
17:08:36 Von Martina Schildt an Alle:
Reacted to "great idea, Charlott..." with 💯
17:16:39 Von Felix Hemme an Alle:
Sara, are you using EDS for discovery?
17:17:39 Von Felix Hemme an Alle:
If yes, do you need to provide the MARC records in this case or is it sufficient to activate you packages in eHoldings? Will this proof holdings in EDS? I have no clue how this works...
17:19:22 Von Laura Daniels an Alle:
I am trying to think if there is a broader category that Agreement/Agreement line would fall into, if we're thinking of proposing a new accordion, are there other types of information we also might want there in future?
17:20:14 Von Maura Byrne an Alle:
Replying to "I am trying to think..."

Do agreements apply only to electronic resources? I’m afraid I know very little about acquisitions processes.
17:20:39 Von Laura Daniels an Alle:
I do like the idea of this kind of link happening at the holdings level, though I wonder if some institutions would want more flexibility?
17:20:43 Von Kristin Martin (UChicago) an Alle:
Replying to "I am trying to think..."

You could make agreements apply to other types of resources, but primarily folks are probably using them for e-resources
17:21:10 Von Kristin Martin (UChicago) an Alle:
This would be quite different from how the link between PO and Inventory exists, though it would like the same.
17:22:05 Von Felix Hemme an Alle:
Why do you need the AGRLine<->Holdings connection at all? And I'm wondering if this connection could be established automatically using ID checks. For Springer ebooks this could work pretty well with ISBNs from the MARC and KBART's.
17:22:56 Von Kristin Martin (UChicago) an Alle:
Replying to "This would be quite ..."

*look the same
17:23:44 Von Maura Byrne an Alle:
Replying to "Why do you need the ..."

Would that be part of Inventory or Agreements, or would that have to be a separately constructed process? (Like Lists, or SQL reports, etc.)
17:24:18 Von Owen Stephens an Alle:
Replying to "Why do you need the ..."

This is an approach I’ve considered, although we know from experience that relying on ISBNs or ISSNs can be challenging
17:24:29 Von Maura Byrne an Alle:
Reacted to "This is an approach ..." with 💯
17:24:36 Von Laura Daniels an Alle:
Replying to "Why do you need the ..."

ISBNs can be particularly unreliable
17:24:53 Von Kristin Martin (UChicago) an Alle:
Reacted to "This is an approach ..." with 💯
17:24:56 Von Laura Daniels an Alle:
Reacted to "This is an approach ..." with 💯
17:25:06 Von Owen Stephens an Alle:
Replying to "Why do you need the ..."

An approach like this is used for eusage though. It can happen from either end
17:25:25 Von Owen Stephens an Alle:
Replying to "Why do you need the ..."

We could decide whether it was done in Agreements or eHoldings or Inventory
17:25:40 Von Maura Byrne an Alle:
Reacted to "We could decide whet..." with 👍
17:25:59 Von Felix Hemme an Alle:
Replying to "Why do you need the ..."

The challenging part are probably ejournals, not ebooks.
17:26:19 Von Owen Stephens an Alle:
Replying to "Why do you need the ..."

I think eBooks more challenging tbh - mainly because of the volume
17:27:20 Von Owen Stephens an Alle:
Reacted to "You could make agree..." with 💯
17:27:39 Von Owen Stephens an Alle:
Replying to "I am trying to think..."

I think we could probably change that “primarily” to “almost exclusively”.
17:27:58 Von Owen Stephens an Alle:
Replying to "I am trying to think..."

I’m not aware of any other use tbh but it’s possible
17:28:28 Von Kristin Martin (UChicago) an Alle:
Replying to "I am trying to think..."

I think we have some licenses recorded in the system for all sorts of things, but maybe not agreements.
17:28:36 Von Owen Stephens an Alle:
Reacted to "I think we have some..." with 👍
17:30:48 Von Owen Stephens an Alle:
Replying to "Why do you need the ..."

I also see this as a potential “linked data” and “entity management” use caess
17:30:54 Von Kristin Martin (UChicago) an Alle:
Replying to "I am trying to think..."

Looks like we didn't attach agreements to those.
17:31:04 Von Owen Stephens an Alle:
Reacted to "Looks like we didn't..." with 👌
17:31:39 Von Maura Byrne an Alle:
Reacted to "I also see this as a..." with 👍
17:32:18 Von Laura Daniels an Alle:
Reacted to "I also see this as a..." with 👍
17:33:45 Von Kristin Martin (UChicago) an Alle:
Springer ebooks may be the most egregious examples of title list confusion
17:34:18 Von Kristin Martin (UChicago) an Alle:
Flexibility: maybe people would want to attach to the Instance if they didn't use the holdings?
17:34:45 Von Felix Hemme an Alle:
Replying to "Springer ebooks may ..."

At least they are good in providing valid MARC and KBART files :D
17:35:26 Von Laura Daniels an Alle:
It's not necessarily relevant to this conversation, but it strikes me that many of us are storing and updating lots of copies of bibliographic metadata just in order to get them indexed for discovery. (We don't need to talk about this here!)
17:35:39 Von Laura Daniels an Alle:
Reacted to "Flexibility: maybe p..." with ➕
17:36:13 Von Felix Hemme an Alle:
Replying to "Why do you need the ..."

You have volume and editon info in the data, but it's not normalized and would need a fuzzy match...
17:36:14 Von Owen Stephens an Alle:
“Electronic access” elements exist at every level of Inventory. Maybe this is the same?
17:36:19 Von Laura Daniels an Alle:
Replying to "It's not necessarily..."

I should have clarified, many of us in the U.S.
17:36:59 Von Laura Daniels an Alle:
Reacted to "“Electronic access” ..." with 👆
17:36:59 Von Owen Stephens an Alle:
Replying to "Why do you need the ..."

I meant volume as in the vast number of ebooks rather than the volume numbers of the books 🙂
17:37:14 Von Felix Hemme an Alle:
Reacted to "I meant volume as in..." with 🤪
17:37:19 Von Maura Byrne an Alle:
Reacted to "I meant volume as in..." with 🤪
17:37:24 Von Owen Stephens an Alle:
Replying to "Why do you need the ..."

Shows how difficult these conversations are 🙂
17:38:45 Von Kristin Martin (UChicago) an Alle:
I know some FOLIO libraries that avoid using holdings because of issues with data import and only provide instances for e-resources in inventory.
17:39:23 Von Owen Stephens an Alle:
Reacted to "I know some FOLIO li..." with 👌
17:40:00 Von Kristin Martin (UChicago) an Alle:
Replying to "It's not necessarily..."

Yep
17:40:49 Von Charlotte Whitt an Alle:
Replying to "It's not necessarily..."

Yes. I was also thinking … if only we could search across Inventory and Agreement using Elastic Search
17:41:16 Von Felix Hemme an Alle:
Replying to "It's not necessarily..."

We might not keep up with a) less staff and b) more and more e-resources in the future.
17:41:39 Von Kristin Martin (UChicago) an Alle:
WOLFCon topic?
17:41:47 Von Felix Hemme an Alle:
Replying to "It's not necessarily..."

Even with us with a central union catalog and distributed work on cataloging and using a central index this is lots of work.
17:42:01 Von Maura Byrne an Alle:
Reacted to "WOLFCon topic?" with ➕
17:42:05 Von Laura Daniels an Alle:
Replying to "WOLFCon topic?"

the messed up bibliographic ecosystem in North America? 😃
17:42:15 Von Ros, Amanda L an Alle:
Reacted to "the messed up biblio..." with 😂
17:44:25 Von Maura Byrne an Alle:
Replying to "WOLFCon topic?"

Gripe session + workarounds + best practices? Sounds like a workshop to me.
17:45:07 Von Charlotte Whitt an Alle:
I’m sorry - I need to drop of for another meeting
17:45:13 Von Martina Schildt an Alle:
Reacted to "I’m sorry - I need t..." with 🙏
17:46:32 Von Owen Stephens an Alle:
Replying to "It's not necessarily..."

Elastic search could be an option - we are looking at this as on horizon of Agreements work
17:47:02 Von Laura Daniels an Alle:
I am continually inspired by learning about how metadata management is done outside the US, e.g., Germany
17:47:59 Von Ros, Amanda L an Alle:
Reacted to "I am continually ins..." with 💯
17:56:56 Von Maura Byrne an Alle:
Reacted to "I am continually ins..." with 💯
18:00:52 Von Laura Daniels an Alle:
this does take us back to some of the use cases we had when we proposed the container record
18:01:01 Von Maura Byrne an Alle:
Removed a 💯 reaction from "I am continually ins..."
18:01:11 Von Owen Stephens an Alle:
And we of course have the packages in orders
18:02:00 Von Kristin Martin (UChicago) an Alle:
That's what I was thinking - this topic of Inventory-Agreement line interactions.
18:02:31 Von Felix Hemme an Alle:
Replying to "That's what I was th..."

I like this idea
18:02:33 Von Laura Daniels an Alle:
could be a combined A-I/MM session?
18:02:35 Von Kristin Martin (UChicago) an Alle:
I'm not sure Sara wants to wait that long for further discussion, but I suspect that we could continue our conversations and then have a workshop on this.
18:02:40 Von Sara Colglazier an Alle:
And Package Orders are not linked to Inventory as their titles as such. Like in the case of the Springer ebooks … I have the POLs linked but then there is no View in Inventory link, because they are not
18:02:53 Von Felix Hemme an Alle:
Reacted to "And Package Orders a..." with 👍

Attendees

Action items